No, I don't understand it. T'Girl made a disjointed comment about people on welfare, the unemployed and the disabled and about drugs and artists. In response to questions, she posted statistics with no discussion.

So, no, I don't understand her point. Most of those last 5 posts were people responding with their own understanding of what T'Girl meant.

Do you understand it? If so, please explain it to me. Otherwise, I'll wait for T'Girl to speak for herself.

It's a rhetorical device designed to create doubt in the audience as to the moral authority of the welfare state and to justify the economic suffering of the impoverished.

We're not in your fantasy world, Sci. You would be shocked how little of reality is about your far-left beliefs.

In the discussed case, I merely pointed out to PhoenixClass how playing the idiot when s/he runs out of arguments, far from gaining her points in a discussion, merely embarasses him/her.
Indeed, s/he should be thankful. Most readers merely have a good laugh at his/her expense in the privacy of their own homes, letting him/her unaware of this failure mode.

taking this away from name-calling and taunts and back to Trek, what one side has consistently FAILED to show is why a post-work citizenry would be such a "disaster" when we have groups in society already, such as the comfortably rich or retired people, who don't have to work and seemed to find productive ways of spending their time.

There's something creepily authoritarian and reactionary in the belief that having to sell your labor to someone else in a hierarchical fashion is just SUCH an important part of what it means to be a society that one can't even conceive of what a different form of societal organization, based around individual freedom and self-actualization would look like.